DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 11/26/2025.
Claim(s) 1-11, and 21-29 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 21, and 27 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-11, and 21-29 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 24, 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym “BSS” is not defined in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym “TXOP” is not defined in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
For claim 1, the claim recites a device having no structural element to perform the plurality of functions, therefore lack more than one structure to perform the plurality of functions.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Applicants are reminded that a machine claim must comprise a combination of device elements. Applicants are reminded that according to MPEP 2106, “Machine – a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11, 21-22, 24-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan.
Regarding claim 1, Patwardhan discloses a device (Patwardhan figure 1) configured to: detect an energy level of an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) communication (Patwardhan figure 3, paragraph 33, “At operation 300, upon receiving/detecting a signal on the operating channel, e.g., of an AP, the AP can compare the power of that signal to the energy detect (ED) threshold…”, figure 5, element 506-508, also see page 8, claims 12, 16); determine an identity associated with the OBSS communication (Patwardhan paragraph 36, “…i.e., they are associated with different BSSIDs. Thus, at operation 306, a check can be performed to determine whether the BSS color associated/indicated in the detected signal is the same as the BSS color of the AP (that detected the signal).…”); determine a threshold associated with the identity of the OBSS communication (Patwardhan paragraph 33, “At operation 300, upon receiving/detecting a signal on the operating channel, e.g., of an AP, the AP can compare the power of that signal to the energy detect (ED) threshold, which in this example (also illustrated in FIG. 5), may be −62 dBm. It should be understood that if any detected signal is above the −62 dBm threshold, nothing is transmitted by that AP”, and paragraph 37, “At operation 308 (if the BSS color of the detected signal and that of the AP is not the same), a check can be performed to determine if the detected signal's power is greater than that of the OBSS_PD threshold (which as shown in FIG. 5 can be, in this example, −72 dBm. If the detected signal's power exceeds the OBSS_PD threshold, the CCA state can be set to busy, the AP is prevented from transmitting its queued data at that time…”); compare the energy level of the OBSS communication to the threshold (Patwardhan figure 3, paragraph 32, “… compares the power of that signal against different SR-relevant thresholds to determine how to handle or process that signal”, paragraph 33, and paragraph 37, “At operation 308… a check can be performed to determine if the detected signal's power is greater than that of the OBSS_PD threshold (which as shown in FIG. 5 can be, in this example, −72 dBm. If the detected signal's power exceeds the OBSS_PD threshold, the CCA state can be set to busy, the AP is prevented from transmitting its queued data at that time. … If the detected signal's power does not exceed the OBSS_PD threshold, the CCA state can be set to idle, and the AP may be allowed to transmit its queued frames…”, also see page 8, claim 12); and transmit a message simultaneous to the OBSS communication on a same link as the OBSS communication, based on the comparison of the threshold to the energy level of the OBSS communication (Patwardhan figure 5, element 508, paragraph 37, “… If the detected signal's power does not exceed the OBSS_PD threshold, the CCA state can be set to idle, and the AP may be allowed to transmit its queued frames…”, paragraph 45, “…allow transmission of the frames ( queued to be transmitted by the transmitter) if the energy/power level of the RF signal relative to certain SR energy level-relevant thresholds permits transmission of frames by the transmitter simultaneously in use by a neighboring transmitter when: the neighboring transmitter is associated with a different BSS, and when the frames are associated with at least one of a high-priority/low-latency/latency-sensitive type of traffic…” also see page 8, claim 12, “…upon a determination that the energy level of the RF signal is within an energy boundary defined by the plurality of SR energy level thresholds, permit transmission of frames, by the first transmitter, on the channel simultaneously with a second transmitter of a neighboring network device operating in an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) …”, paragraph 36, “The other above-discussed aspect of SR is the coordinated, and simultaneous transmission of data on the same channel (between two OBSSs)…”).
Regarding claim 2, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is a color for a BSS (Patwardhan paragraph 36, “…i.e., they are associated with different BSSIDs. Thus, at operation 306, a check can be performed to determine whether the BSS color associated/indicated in the detected signal is the same as the BSS color of the AP (that detected the signal).…”).
Regarding claim 6, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to operate as a station (STA) (Patwardhan paragraph 17, “…The controller 104 may be operable to configure and/or manage switches, routers, access points, and/or client devices connected to a network…”, also see page 8, claim 16).
Regarding claim 7, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to operate as an access point (Patwardhan paragraph 17, “…The controller 104 may be operable to configure and/or manage switches, routers, access points, and/or client devices connected to a network…”, also see page 8, claim 16).
Regarding claim 11, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to adjust a transmit power for the transmitted message based on the energy level of the OBSS communication (Patwardhan paragraph 30, “OBSS-PD spatial reuse allows for adjustments to the PD threshold to be made between a minimum of −82 dBm and a maximum of −62 dBm, modifying the signal detection threshold window to take advantage of an SR opportunity. The amount of adjustment allowed would be determined by the transmit power used. Lowering the transmit power reduces the potential for interference and supports a more aggressive PD value. A lower power may reduce the data rate, but increased transmit opportunities will lower latency (for the proper traffic, e.g., high-priority/low-latency traffic)”, and figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 21, Patwardhan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and the device comprising: a first access point (AP) designated as a primary AP and a second AP (Patwardhan figure 1, and paragraph 17, “A controller 104 may be operable to configure and manage network devices, such as at the primary site 102, and may also manage network devices at the remote sites 132, 134. The controller 104 may be operable to configure and/or manage switches, routers, access points, and/or client devices connected to a network. The controller 104 may itself be, or provide the functionality of, an access point”).
Regarding claim 22, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the first AP and the second AP are configured to transmit at a power level based on the threshold (Patwardhan paragraph 30, “OBSS-PD spatial reuse allows for adjustments to the PD threshold to be made between a minimum of −82 dBm and a maximum of −62 dBm, modifying the signal detection threshold window to take advantage of an SR opportunity. The amount of adjustment allowed would be determined by the transmit power used. Lowering the transmit power reduces the potential for interference and supports a more aggressive PD value. A lower power may reduce the data rate, but increased transmit opportunities will lower latency (for the proper traffic, e.g., high-priority/low-latency traffic)”, and figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 24, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the first AP is configured to: identify one or more network nodes based on a color of a BSS of the identified network nodes (Patwardhan paragraph 36, “…i.e., they are associated with different BSSIDs. Thus, at operation 306, a check can be performed to determine whether the BSS color associated/indicated in the detected signal is the same as the BSS color of the AP (that detected the signal).…”).; and determine the threshold based on the identification (Patwardhan paragraph 33, “At operation 300, upon receiving/detecting a signal on the operating channel, e.g., of an AP, the AP can compare the power of that signal to the energy detect (ED) threshold, which in this example (also illustrated in FIG. 5), may be −62 dBm. It should be understood that if any detected signal is above the −62 dBm threshold, nothing is transmitted by that AP”, and paragraph 37, “At operation 308 (if the BSS color of the detected signal and that of the AP is not the same), a check can be performed to determine if the detected signal's power is greater than that of the OBSS_PD threshold (which as shown in FIG. 5 can be, in this example, −72 dBm. If the detected signal's power exceeds the OBSS_PD threshold, the CCA state can be set to busy, the AP is prevented from transmitting its queued data at that time…”, also see figure 5, element 506-508, also see page 8, claims 12).
Regarding claim 25, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the first AP is configured to: identify one or more network nodes based on an identifier of at least one of a transmitter or a receiver of a message (Patwardhan paragraph 36, “…i.e., they are associated with different BSSIDs. Thus, at operation 306, a check can be performed to determine whether the BSS color associated/indicated in the detected signal is the same as the BSS color of the AP (that detected the signal).…”); and determine the threshold based on the identification (Patwardhan paragraph 37, “At operation 308 (if the BSS color of the detected signal and that of the AP is not the same), a check can be performed to determine if the detected signal's power is greater than that of the OBSS_PD threshold…”).
Regarding claim 27, Patwardhan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of US_20240040642_A1_Han.
Regarding claim 3, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the device is an access point (AP) further configured to schedule a TXOP for an additional network node, separate from the AP, based on the energy level, and convey the TXOP to the additional network node.
Han discloses wherein the device is an access point (AP) further configured to schedule a TXOP for an additional network node, separate from the AP, based on the energy level, and convey the TXOP to the additional network node (Han, paragraph 62, “During the negotiation 230, a leader AP will be elected in order to take the role of resource scheduler and coordinator. More details of this negotiation 230 are discussed below with reference to FIGS. 6 and 7. Next, upon the completion of AP-to-AP negotiation 230, the elected leader AP will perform 240 multi-dimensional resource scheduling and inform all participating APs for their respective duties. More specifically, multi-dimensional resource scheduling can include one or more of the TXOP in time domain…”, paragraph 66, “…When OBSS signals are detected, APs can coordinate with each other in a TXOP to dynamically increase or reduce the transmit power levels, in order to mitigate the interference and improve the throughput. The BSS size is flexibly modified during the coordination (hence to perform spatial reuse among coordinated APs”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Han’s the leader AP scheduling TXOP according to power coordination among APs in Patwardhan’s system to mitigate the interference and improve the throughput (Han paragraph 66). This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Han. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Han to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of WO_2016062263_A1_Lv (with English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is an identity of an addressee of the OBSS communication.
Lv discloses wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is an identity of an addressee of the OBSS communication (Lv page 11, 5th paragraph, “When station A receives a radio frame, it according to the BSS attribution information in the MAC frame header, such as the destination address, the sending address, BSS address, the "to the network (To DS)" / "from the network (From DS)" information, determining whether the currently received radio frame is an OBSS radio frame, acquiring the Duration information in the MAC frame head”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lv’s identifying an OBSS radio frame with it’s destination address in the frame header in Patwardhan’s system to allow devices to quickly identify the signal without demodulation. This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lv. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Lv to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of US_20210127291_A1_Chen.
Regarding claim 5, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is a identify of each of a transmitter-receiver pair performing the OBSS communication.
Chen discloses wherein the identity associated with the OBSS communication is a identify of each of a transmitter-receiver pair performing the OBSS communication (Chen paragraph 147, “…each user field in EHT-SIG may include a <BSS color, STA ID> tuple to uniquely identify each AP-STA pair, where the BSS color represents the original BSS color of the AP …”, and paragraphs 150-151).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chen’s each user field in EHT-SIG may include a <BSS color, STA ID> tuple to uniquely identify each AP-STA pair in Patwardhan’s system for ease of implementation. This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of WO_2018231734_A1_Jiang.
Regarding claim 8, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the device is configured to maintain a lookup table (LUT) for one or more stations of a same BSS.
Jiang discloses wherein the device is configured to maintain a lookup table (LUT) for one or more stations of a same BSS (Jiang paragraph 17, “…the initiating AP may maintain a lookup table to store the AP IDs that it may receive from responding or adjacent APs over time…”, and paragraph 18).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Jiang’s the AP may maintain a lookup table in Patwardhan’s system to store the AP IDs that it may receive from responding or adjacent APs over time (Jiang paragraph 17). This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Jiang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Jiang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of US_20180206181_A1_Karabinis.
Regarding claim 23, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 22, further comprising: a wired connection between the first AP and the second AP (Patwardhan figure 1, connections 112, 114, paragraph 20, wired connection), but does not disclose configured to convey power level information between the first AP and the second AP.
Karabinis discloses configured to convey power level information between the first AP and the second AP (Karabinis paragraph 100, “…the interconnections between access points may provide/enable a distributed intelligence whereby various access points (such as, for example, access points that are proximate to one another) share information (e.g., frequency usage, Quality-of-Service, data rate required by a DD, diversity operation required by a DD or should be offered to a DD, a hand-off that should take place in order to improve service to/from a DD and/or levels of interference) and may thus be able to adaptively vary frequencies being used, bandwidth, protocol, power level, connectivity with one another and/or antenna directivity/pointing”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Karabinis’s share information between the access points in Patwardhan’s system to coordinate their transmissions and optimize network efficiency. This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Karabinis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Karabinis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 29, Patwardhan discloses the method of claim 27, but does not disclose wherein: the AP is configured to transmit based on power level information received from a second AP over a wired connection.
Karabinis discloses wherein: the AP is configured to transmit based on power level information received from a second AP over a wired connection (Karabinis paragraph 100, “…the interconnections between access points may provide/enable a distributed intelligence whereby various access points (such as, for example, access points that are proximate to one another) share information (e.g., frequency usage, Quality-of-Service, data rate required by a DD, diversity operation required by a DD or should be offered to a DD, a hand-off that should take place in order to improve service to/from a DD and/or levels of interference) and may thus be able to adaptively vary frequencies being used, bandwidth, protocol, power level, connectivity with one another and/or antenna directivity/pointing”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Karabinis’s share information between the access points in Patwardhan’s system to coordinate their transmissions and optimize network efficiency. This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Karabinis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Karabinis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of US_20210022156_A1_Bhanage.
Regarding claim 26, Patwardhan discloses the device of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the first AP is configured to store a pathloss between each device of a BSS of the first AP and a device of a BSS of the second AP.
Bhanage discloses wherein the first AP is configured to store a pathloss between each device of a BSS of the first AP and a device of a BSS of the second AP (Bhanage paragraph 60, “…The method 1100 may be performed by a scheduling apparatus (e.g., AP 102, central controller 120,etc.)”, paragraph 65, “… the scheduling apparatus may have obtained signaling (over a wired medium and/or wireless medium) with parameter(s) indicating at least one of the second BSS's operating channel and bandwidth, distance (pathloss) and azimuth angles between the first BSS and the second BSS…”, and paragraph 27).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Bhanage’s the scheduling apparatus/AP may have obtained signaling with parameter(s) indicating at least one of the second BSS's operating channel and bandwidth, distance (pathloss) and azimuth angles between the first BSS and the second BSS in Patwardhan’s system to improve spectral efficiency via spatial reuse (Bhanage paragraph 27). This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Bhanage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Bhanage to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220322436_A1_Patwardhan in view of US_20210127420_A1_Lu.
Regarding claim 28, Patwardhan discloses the method of claim 27, but does not disclose wherein the alignment comprises: aligning, by the AP, a beginning or an ending of transmission of a first data packet with a first non-AP device with a beginning or an ending of transmission of a second data packet with a second non-AP device.
Lu discloses wherein the alignment comprises: aligning, by the AP, a beginning or an ending of transmission of a first data packet with a first non-AP device with a beginning or an ending of transmission of a second data packet with a second non-AP device (Lu figures 1-2, and paragraph 36, also see page 11 claim 5).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lu’s aligning the transmission on link 1 of first station and link 2 of second station in Patwardhan’s system to avoid interference (Lu paragraphs 5, 45-46). This method for improving the system of Patwardhan was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Lu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patwardhan and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471